H
Holly3278
Guest
Hi everyone. I read that intinction of the Eucharist is a traditional practice. Why, then, is it discouraged either by our Bishops or by Rome? 
Why is intinction of the Eucharist discouraged if it is a traditional practice?
- Status
J
jbecknell
Guest
One needs to make the distinction between small âtâ tradition and big âTâ Tradition. In this case, a small âtâ tradition, or disciplines, may change (like celibate priests, though it never would), and do change (like boy altar servers, the practice of intinction, and the liturgy). Big âTâ Traditions involve the deposit of faith, and once developed (like the Immaculate Conception), are identified as dogma and do not substantively change. The Church Itself is the guardian of Sacred Tradition, but disciplines may fall under the purview of the Local Ordinary. Please see Acts 15.
P
Phemie
Guest
I donât think itâs discouraged by Rome since itâs in the GIRM.Hi everyone. I read that intinction of the Eucharist is a traditional practice. Why, then, is it discouraged either by our Bishops or by Rome?
I donât know about how various bishops view it. I know that in one particular diocese I never see the Precious Blood offered at all whether by intinction or offering the Chalice. In the Cathedral of our Archdiocese I didnât see it offered at Sunday Mass.
Our bishop, OTOH, insists on offering the Chalice: after a few months of withholding it due to H1N1 last year, he sent around a memo reminding priests to resume offering the Chalice because it was an fuller sign of the Heavenly banquet. Intinction had never been recommended at that time, indeed our pastor had requested that those who wished to receive on the tongue approach at the very end of the Communion line so there would be no accidental transfer of saliva to other people.
But, it doesnât surprise me that intinction isnât used much because Communion in that fashion must be received on the tongue and thatâs not something with which a lot of people are comfortable. In fact, in a class on Liturgy a few years ago, a priest taught that in Canada, because itâs the communicantâs choice to receive in the hand or on the tongue, intinction is not to be used because it removes the choice. Nothing in the Canadian GIRM supports his assertion.
T
tee_eff_em
Guest
News to me that intinction is discouraged by any authority?Hi everyone. I read that intinction of the Eucharist is a traditional practice. Why, then, is it discouraged either by our Bishops or by Rome?
tee
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Probably what the OP means by discouraged is, âwhy donât I see it more oftenâ?
Which I agree, I canât remember the last time I attended a Roman Rite Mass which offered intincted Communion
Which I agree, I canât remember the last time I attended a Roman Rite Mass which offered intincted Communion
J
jj_nycguy
Guest
At one parish I have gone to, they encourage instinction. I love the fact that COTT is the only way to receive, at this parish. It is wonderful to see and no one complains. I guess that parish has successfully silenced the modernists. 
L
Layman
Guest
Errr ⌠maybe messiness?
Also, I think Communion in both species was stopped because people got the idea that they werenât really receiving Communion unless they received under both species.
Also, I think Communion in both species was stopped because people got the idea that they werenât really receiving Communion unless they received under both species.
A
Apryl
Guest
Well, there is Intinction, and there is SELF-Intinction.
The SELF-Intinction, where the recipient himself, dips the Host into the chalice.
This practice, while in some areas very common, is discouraged.
With Self-Intinction, you get people who dip their fingers into the Sacred Wine, who wind up sprinkling the Consecrated Wine on the ground (to be walked on⌠even if unintentional).
With the practice of Intinction, you have the priest (or deacon, or EMHC) who will dip the Host into the Consecrated Wine while over the plate (whatâs that called? Just not there right now). This is a much cleaner, more respectful practice.
T
thistle
Guest
Self-intinction is not discouraged. It is absolutely forbidden by the Church.Well, there is Intinction, and there is SELF-Intinction.
The SELF-Intinction, where the recipient himself, dips the Host into the chalice.
This practice, while in some areas very common, is discouraged.
With Self-Intinction, you get people who dip their fingers into the Sacred Wine, who wind up sprinkling the Consecrated Wine on the ground (to be walked on⌠even if unintentional).
With the practice of Intinction, you have the priest (or deacon, or EMHC) who will dip the Host into the Consecrated Wine while over the plate (whatâs that called? Just not there right now). This is a much cleaner, more respectful practice.
M
malphono
Guest
Self-intinction is far more than discouraged: itâs prohibited. From Redemptionis Sacramentum (emphasis added):Well, there is Intinction, and there is SELF-Intinction.
The SELF-Intinction, where the recipient himself, dips the Host into the chalice.
This practice, while in some areas very common, is discouraged.
P
Phemie
Guest
It should be more than âdiscouragedâ, that practice is forbidden.Well, there is Intinction, and there is SELF-Intinction.
The SELF-Intinction, where the recipient himself, dips the Host into the chalice.
This practice, while in some areas very common, is discouraged.
T
tee_eff_em
Guest
Yes, that is why I spoke only of intinction, a legitimate practice.Well, there is Intinction, and there is SELF-Intinction.
The SELF-Intinction, where the recipient himself, dips the Host into the chalice.
This practice, while in some areas very common, is discouraged.
With Self-Intinction, you get people who dip their fingers into the Sacred Wine, who wind up sprinkling the Consecrated Wine on the ground (to be walked on⌠even if unintentional).
With the practice of Intinction, you have the priest (or deacon, or EMHC) who will dip the Host into the Consecrated Wine while over the plate (whatâs that called? Just not there right now). This is a much cleaner, more respectful practice.
Had I meant *self-intinction *I would have said so, and would have noted (as have others) that the practice is not permitted.
tee
H
Holly3278
Guest
Interesting. Itâs glad to see that it is not discouraged by Rome.
Well, both our former new Associate Pastor asked us not to do it and so did our Bishop I think.News to me that intinction is discouraged by any authority?
tee
M
MarkThompson
Guest
Intinction can only be done by a priest, so, unless you are one, it makes sense that you would be asked not to do it.
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
Who is âusâ? Intinction as a method of distributing is done only by a priest or deacon. A Lay EMHC should not be distributing by intinction. Also, there is a special dish (a plate with a bowl for the wine that fits into it) for distributing by intinction. And ideally, there would also be an acolyate with a platen under the recipientâs chin. It really would be a disaster if one person tried to juggle a ciborium, and chalice, and still distribute!
I can see why your priest and/or bishop discouraged distribution by intinction if the parish does not have the proper equipment or enough clergy to distribute this way.
I know of one parish in WV where the priest always distributes by intinction, we attend Mass there once a year on vacation and it is always a special time.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I didnât know it was. Unless they think the Latin Rite isnât ready for it.Why, then, is it discouraged either by our Bishops or by Rome?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Actually only a priest and bishop may intinct the Host. Even the deacon canât.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
who has discouraged it? of what diocese are you speaking?
if you are speaking of intinction by the priest (not the faithful) it is encouraged. as far as âmessinessâ there are proper vessels intended for the purpose that make the concern groundless
T
tee_eff_em
Guest
Well, if *you *have been speaking of self-intinction (and it sounds like you have), then I amend my comment: It is not discouraged; to the laity it is forbidden.
tee
R
RB2
Guest
Self-intinction is discouraged or illicit because it increases the risk of spilling the blood of Christ onto the carpet.
Being the 20th post I am really amazed that no one else has mentioned this.
Once Christâs blood is spilled on the carpet or ground you then have an emergency, most certainly a scene, which needs immediate attention of the Priest. Self-intinction, commonly practiced, would certainly lead to many incidences of this in a parish.
When I came back to Church many moons ago, I noticed at my very liberal Church that some people were doing this, I did the same until I learned better.
I actually would prefer some method of this over drinking from the same cup as 100 or so other people, some very sick, aged and suffering from God knows what. Plus Iâm in Southern California, the unchecked health status of illegal aliens with a cocomitent(spelling) increase of tuberculosis
and other unchecked diseases due to this is a big risk.
Being the 20th post I am really amazed that no one else has mentioned this.
Once Christâs blood is spilled on the carpet or ground you then have an emergency, most certainly a scene, which needs immediate attention of the Priest. Self-intinction, commonly practiced, would certainly lead to many incidences of this in a parish.
When I came back to Church many moons ago, I noticed at my very liberal Church that some people were doing this, I did the same until I learned better.
I actually would prefer some method of this over drinking from the same cup as 100 or so other people, some very sick, aged and suffering from God knows what. Plus Iâm in Southern California, the unchecked health status of illegal aliens with a cocomitent(spelling) increase of tuberculosis
and other unchecked diseases due to this is a big risk.
- Status